Individualism vs Collectivism - It's Very Simple

When presented with a political or cultural dilemma I admit that my immediate reaction is not to attempt to find a nuanced, centrist position. I look at the problem, mentally hold it up to my values and attempt to discern whether this quandary is originating from the Left side of the political spectrum or the Right. The most important thing for me in classifying something as Left or Right is whether it is egalitarian or anti-egalitarian. I consider that distinction to be my political foundation.

When I read an article or social media post in which the writer is advocating for some form of radical individualism while decrying collectivism—which either goes undefined or is described using what they consider to be the most tyrannical States in recent history—I ask myself, "Who is going to protect these rights you hold dear?" If I were to ask the author that question, I would not expect a direct answer on most occasions. Instead, the response I most expect would be, "The government we have doesn’t protect our rights!" That in no way answers my question. I acknowledge this government doesn’t protect your rights, but some kind of collective protection must exist in order for your rights to remain intact.

Another response I’ll mention because I’ve received it more than once to the question of "Who is going to protect these rights you hold dear?" is, "That’s what I have guns for." In the overwhelming majority of conversations, when someone invokes their 2nd Amendment rights they’re talking out their ass. They are in no way prepared to start shooting up government agents, and that’s a good thing because it’s not going to work out well for them (if you have to invoke the Bundy Ranch, you’re proving my point). And, unless you’re a psycho who believes that every State actor considers you to be their slave, these people are your neighbors, and, in the court of public opinion, killing your neighbor because he or she works as the County Clerk is not going to bode well for compiling a sympathetic jury (I’ll be declaring you guilty). Of course, that is you survive your murderous spree.

It’s at this point that the aforementioned "radical individualist" is probably screaming that governments can’t protect people’s rights and always go tyrannical. I remember posting about the tiny principality of Liechtenstein and the Libertarian reforms its prince made in reducing taxes to low single digits and allowing hamlets to secede, as well as other reductions in State power. A "radical individualist" responded that Prince Hans was a dictator because marijuana wasn’t 100% legal and someone could be fined or even jailed for being a repeat offender. Please understand that someone who uses the term dictator to describe a leader like Prince Hans believes they can live an atomized life in which they and they alone can protect "their rights." When I mention that the only reason their stronger neighbor hasn’t enslaved them to work their farm is because a State exists, I am called an ensemble of childish terms invented by the "greatest anarchist thinkers in history." They do not realize I understand something they don’t.

The reality in which we live is that men aren’t angels. Some will respond, "That’s why you can’t give them power!" While that may be a fair point, you have to play the hand reality deals you. We live in a world in which most people desire a government to protect their rights, and the fact that it not only fails to do so but violates the rights themselves doesn’t change that fact. I know I’m a broken record here, but if the fact that people desire a State is so insulting to you, find like-minded people and go build what you think will meet your needs. It’s my opinion that only a collective can protect the rights people hold so dear. The answer is simple, but not easy: people who share your values have to be in charge. I’ve half jokingly taken to saying that I don’t care what form of government I live under as long as my friends are running it. Denying that collectives willing to commit violence to protect your rights are necessary for order is dodging reality. The question to ask should be, "What’s the optimal size, Pete?"